>Statement 1: People living in the "wrong" place must be moved to the "right" place. >Statement 1 is much less defensible position than statement 2 How is this

>Statement 1: People living in the "wrong" place must be moved to the "right" place. >Statement 1 is much less defensible position than statement 2 How is this not defensible at all? It's perfectly reasonable. Let's go back to Centralia PA: how exactly do you propose the government make that town safe to live in when there's a coal fire underneath it which has been burning for 50 years? It that doesn't qualify as "the wrong place", I don't know what does. You can cry about moral problems all you want, but the laws of physics (which govern coal fires) really don't care about human morals and ethics. Let's come up with an even more extreme example: NASA determines a space rock is going to strike your town (of ~10,000) next year and wipe it out. Let's assume that somehow their accuracy is excellent. There's nowhere near enough time to come up with a way of rerouting this killer asteroid (after all, we've never done that before and don't really have the technology), and luckily it's only big enough to wipe out your town, instead of causing planetary-level destruction. The government wants to relocate everyone to safety. Are you saying this is wrong somehow, and that the government should somehow make this town safe from asteroid impacts? That's truly insane.